🚀 go-pugleaf

Sean McGraw <Use-Author-Supplied-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in message news:<DSV7BJ2K37378.7264814815@anonymous.poster>...
> FALSE THINKING ON IMMIGRATION-
> -IT'S NOT CHICKEN SOUP
> IF THE RECIPE IS CHANGED
> by H. Millard (c) 2002 
>  
> Jonah Goldberg, the editor of National Review Online, had an
> immigration column in the Los Angeles Times on Sunday, Feb. 24,
> entitled "Ideologues Have Hijacked an Important Debate."
> 
> The column attempts to persuade readers: 1) that the immigration
> debate should be focused on whether immigrants are legal or illegal,
> 2) that race should not be part of the debate, and 3) those who make
> race part of the debate are ideologues (read, evil racists). Ho hum,
> yawn. Goldberg also writes of his dismay at the creation of "identity
> politics for white people."
> 
> The first point is the usual PC distracter that intentionally or
> unintentionally sets up those who accept it for a fall that will come
> with the stroke of a pen if President Bush decides to make all
> illegals, legal. If that happens, will those who argue that
> immigrants are good or bad for America, based on whether the
> immigrants are legal or illegal, be happy? If so, then such people
> don't understand the real reason that present massive immigration is
> destroying America.
> 
> The third point should just be laughed at and dismissed without
> comment, by conscious white people who might want to consider the
> source.
> 
> The second point, though, is worth discussing at length, because it
> is an argument that others also keep trying to make, and it needs to
> be deconstructed. Saying that race should not be part of the debate
> on our current massive Third World immigration is just more of the
> silly attempt to make people think that the important characteristic
> of immigrants is the term "immigrants," itself. It fallaciously lumps
> all immigrants together as though they are all the same people:
> immigrants. That's a little like lumping all dogs together as dogs
> and thereafter deciding that you're going to enter your poodle in a
> race against a greyhound because poodles and greyhounds are both dogs
> and thus, in your mind at least, the same. Unfortunately, versions of
> this argument are made so often in post-American America that many
> otherwise intelligent people calmly accept them as gospel, and
> respond with something like, "We're a nation of immigrants."
> Actually, EVERY nation is a nation of immigrants, but I've written
> about that in other columns, so I'll leave it at that for now.
> 
> In an emotional attempt to convince people of the correctness of his
> positions, Goldberg fills his column with the usual dark innuendoes
> and nonsense that we've come to expect from liberals and certain PC
> conservatives. Thus, V-Dare, a website that takes immigration reform
> positions, is called "shrill," by Goldberg. And, some of those who
> write on immigration issues are, according to Goldberg, "hiding out
> in their bunkers."
> 
> It appears that Goldberg believes the major hijacker of the
> immigration debate is Pat Buchanan, whose book, "The Death of the
> West" says what many of us have been saying and writing for years
> about immigration and about the genocide of white people.
> 
> Goldberg also rails against whites finding their identity in their
> race, and he writes "[M]any white folks have come to buy into the
> tribal logic of Afrocentrists, feminists, La Raza fanatics and the
> like." Interesting comment from a guy who leads into his attacks on
> Buchanan (who in this instance is simply a stand-in for all whites
> who may have similar thoughts) by making cute and telling readers
> that he first met Buchanan when Buchanan attended Goldberg's bris
> when the latter was eight days old.
> 
> As readers may know, the bris is a ritual circumcision performed on
> Jewish boys. Many people consider this genital mutilation of young
> boys a tribal ritual par excellence. One wonders, given Goldberg's
> whine against the tribalism of others, whether he simply put this
> information about his own tribalism in his column subconsciously or
> whether (and we jest) the Mohel had palsy and Goldberg is now
> something of a mental castrato incapable of understanding how
> hypocritical his comments seem to those who have some understanding
> of these things.
> 
> Goldberg writes that Buchanan's "The Death of the West," "warns
> hysterically that the white race is becoming an 'endangered species,'
> about to be swallowed up by the duskier Third World (defined as all
> non-whites no matter how rich, educated or democratic)." Such a
> sentence speaks volumes about Goldberg and his lack of understanding
> of the issues involved in the present Third World immigration
> invasion. The reality is that whites truly are becoming an
> 'endangered species.' Whites are only about 10% of the world's human
> population and with their declining birth rates, their increasingly
> high intermarriage rates, the high birth rates of many Third World
> people, and mass transportation that is bringing millions of Third
> Worlders to the First World, hysterics are in order. Perhaps, if
> various American Indian tribes had gotten hysterical they wouldn't
> have become extinct.
> 
> Also, what are we to make of Goldberg's lapse of logic when he writes
> that Buchanan refers to the Third World "as all non-whites no mater
> how rich, educated or democratic"? What does "rich," "educated" or
> "democratic" have to do with whether one is a Third Worlder or not?
> Perhaps Goldberg gets this all mixed up in his mind because he is
> prejudiced against considering that genes are important and thus he
> can't understand that the Third World, which is often identified as
> poor, uneducated and undemocratic is so, not because of these
> characteristics themselves, but because of the genes of the people in
> those Third World nations. What Goldberg doesn't want to say is that
> virtually all of the Third World has one more characteristic: it is
> non-white.
> 
> Goldberg also writes the following outrageous sentence, "[W]e need to
> respond to the fact that the president of Mexico is developing
> political constituencies on both sides of the border. This would be
> troubling if Mexico were as white as Canada."
> 
> Goldberg doesn't tell readers why, in his opinion, it would be
> troubling if Mexico were as white as Canada, but when his column is
> taken as a whole, one might be excused for getting the impression
> that Goldberg is not a big fan of non-Jewish white people. There's a
> further indication of this in Goldberg's comments about Russian
> Vladimir V. Zhirinovsky who Goldberg indicates was "totally off his
> rocker when he introduced a bill in the Duma denying Russian women
> the right to leave the country and permitting ethnic Russian men to
> marry up to five wives." The reality is that Russia has a low
> birthrate--the nation is getting old and dying--and Zhirinovsky's
> bill would have helped increase the birthrate. This is a good thing
> for dying nations and peoples. It stops them from becoming extinct.
> 
> By rejecting the reality of genes and those combinations of genes
> that result in distinct races of humans, Goldberg banishes himself to
> the same "environment is everything" intellectual dead end inhabited
> by so many liberals. By not accepting the truth of nature of the
> importance of genes to the way every living thing IS, and in what
> every living thing DOES, one is thereafter left wandering in a PC
> wilderness wondering why people are as they are and why some nations
> are good places to live and others aren't. Such thinking is similar
> to what liberals do all the time with their nature vs. nurture
> arguments in which they attempt to show that race doesn't matter. All
> black basketball teams? To the liberals and certain aracial
> conservatives, the reason can't be because blacks have some
> genetically determined racial advantage in the sport, but because of
> environment. One liberal once told me that blacks did better in
> sports requiring foot speed because as kids they were chased by
> racist white cops. I'm serious.
> 
> Goldberg, then gives us this tough guy command (Whether this is sung
> in soprano, or sneered like a member of the TV mob family the
> Sopranos--isn't clear--but in either case it's laughable), "Race
> isn't the point (about immigration), so drop it. Now." Sorry, Mr.
> Goldberg, race is the point, and many of us are not going to drop it.
> Ever. Let me tell you why we won't drop it.
> 
> A physical nation can be compared to a soup pot. The character of the
> soup in the pot doesn't depend on the pot, but on what you put in the
> pot, usually according to a recipe. Deviate from that recipe and
> you'll end up with a different soup, even though the pot is the same.
> It's about proportions of ingredients. Chicken soup requires a
> predominance of chicken. Change the proportions in the soup and
> you'll end up with something else. That's what's happening with
> America today. We're ending up with something else. And this
> something else can be seen in our violent crime rates, our declining
> quality of life, our growing homeless population and much more.
> America is being transformed into a Third World nation by the Third
> Worlders who made their old Third World nations the places that
> wanted to flee.
> 
> The recipe that made America great, contained a far greater
> percentage of white people in the pot than are in the pot today.
> That's not opinion. It's a fact. Yet, many people don't want to face
> that fact. America was a new Europe--it was peopled and built by some
> of the genetically boldest Europeans who were unchained from
> centuries of European tradition and whose genes sent them forth to a
> new land. Over the years, other non-Europeans came to these shores,
> but their numbers were small enough so that they constituted the
> spice in the recipe, not the dominant ingredients. With massive Third
> World immigration that is changing. The spice is now overwhelming the
> other ingredients.
> 
> Many of these aracial people who want to deny the reality of race and
> genes will talk about blood lines of race horses or pedigrees of dogs
> and cats or even of growing certain varieties of flowers, yet they
> seem oblivious that all of these things involve genes, and that these
> living things are as they are because of their genes. However, when
> some of these very same people talk about humans, they seem to
> believe that genes don't matter.
> 
> All immigrants are not the same. We, as a nation, need to let in
> those we want to let in, and keep out those we want to keep out. Does
> this involve selecting people we want to let in based on genetic
> considerations? You bet it does. Genes are the most important element
> in all of life. It's time we started preserving the recipe for
> America that works. 
> 
> #  #  #
> 
> http://www.newnation.org/Millard/Millard-its-not-chicken-soup.html

Ahh, what else would you expect from a Mr. Goldberg? 

Great statement, "Genes are the most important element in all of life."

Will